Cameras in class, banned books, and CRT

One of the great features of the United States is our desire to provide a free education to every child.  And really, when I started my teaching career, I never thought it would be political.  Just a building where teachers did their job and children attempted to weasel out of doing their work.  The typical cat and mouse.  The eternal struggle.  Nearly two decades later,  and my idealism hangs on by the thinnest of threads.  Let’s go to the Midwest!

Cameras in the classroom

Iowa’s state legislature is considering H.F. 2177, a bill which would allow cameras in public school classrooms (except for physical education and special education classes).  Under the bill, parents, guardians, and others could connect to a livestream into their children’s classes and observe what transpires.  Instructors who fail to keep the livestream active or obstruct the camera’s view could face a 5% pay cut for their weekly salary (per infraction).  

The bill’s sponsor, Norlin Mommsen (R), argued that the bill would “showcase the great work our teachers do,” and compared this concept to the application of body cameras on police officers.  He also believes the measure would hold teachers accountable and takes away any uncertainty about what occurs in the classroom.  Mommsen also stated that the primary purpose of the proposal was to, “increase the involvement of parents in their children’s education.”

Cameras in the class? Bad policy for all parties

Iowa’s move isn’t the only aggressive approach to cameras in the classroom.  Florida’s legislature is taking up HB 1055, which requires cameras in classrooms and does not specify that cameras must be turned off when students are not in the room.  Sponsors of the bill believe it would catch more incidents of bullying and show teachers who neglect their duties.  There would not be live-streaming but if some event occurred in the classroom which concerned a parent, that parent would have the right to see a recording within seven days.  

I do not have any idea about the likelihood of these bills passing, but I do know they are unwise and counterproductive.  Briefly, let’s address why they would be bad for classrooms.

The cost of quality video cameras, software to allow for live streaming, and devices for storage would outstrip any possible value the cameras would have in catching ‘bad’ teachers or allowing parents to ‘check in’ with their children’s classes.  Republican lawmakers are the ones pushing these camera laws, but this doesn’t seem to conflict with their constant desire for fiscal responsibility.  

Cameras in the classroom also present a serious problem about the privacy of students.  While a parent may like the idea of having access to their child’s classroom, they may not feel comfortable when they realize the larger implications.  Other individuals will have access to a live feed where they can see children on video who are not their own.  I think that’s cause for concern for any parent.  

Allowing video access to a classroom will also not allow for contextualization.  Parents might log in to a camera feed during the middle of a lesson, or a conversation, and misunderstand a situation.  Moreover, this will increase the number of unreasonable parent complaints.  Any small  slight — real or perceived — would create more unnecessary work for already overworked administrators.

Video cameras in a classroom would also create an even greater teacher shortage, driving away professionals who do not wish to be treated under a constant cloud of suspicion.  Iowa faces a shortage of 1,500 teachers as of the end of 2021.  Does the state somehow believe more men and women will want to become teachers once they are constantly under surveillance?  

I suppose teachers would consider consenting to this if the members of the state legislature and the governor would agree to an equal amount of video access regarding every moment of their day, so that constituents could see what their representatives do in every given moment of their day, including meetings with lobbyists and other political agents.  Wouldn’t that be a better use of cameras?

Professional educators do not need cameras monitoring their every word and action.  It’s a form of micromanaging and adds to an already stressful job.  Parents who have questions about the classroom and their child’s education are always welcome to contact a teacher to discuss any matter, but accessing cameras in a class is a bridge too far.  This doesn’t even address the problems which would emanate from students knowing that they are being monitored via camera.  While a person may believe this would promote better student behavior, it would stifle discussion and participation in the classroom.  

Education is a culture war hot spot

Cameras in the classroom are a dreadful idea, but this concept is only a smaller part of a culture war.  Politicians around the country have attempted to make a name for themselves as the protectors of American values by attacking a problem which does not exist.  The ‘cameras in classrooms’ fight is the latest straw man in a litany of educational gripes where conservatives believe American children are somehow being indoctrinated by ‘radical leftist teachers.’  

A popular book on many ‘banned’ lists; it addresses racism on multiple levels

Currently, state legislatures are considering bills which advance bans on teaching ‘critical race theory’ (which many people can’t seem to clearly define) and censor or outright ban certain books from public education.  Over 30 states have legislation under consideration which would ban certain books from schools.  This is the level of concern some individuals have that teachers are attempting to indoctrinate their children.  Calm down everyone.  The kids are all right.

I do believe it is inherently the right and a duty of a parent to carefully consider the books their children read.  Participate in your child’s education from kindergarten through their senior year.  The content which children consume will affect who they are and what they believe.  However, I want parents to have this same level of scrutiny when it comes to the digital content their children consume.  What social media platforms do the children use?  What text messages are they sending, and to whom? What films and television shows are they watching?  What music is on their playlist?  I would submit that this content is far more potentially damaging to the development of a child than the books they might read and parents should curate that content with just as much diligence.  

In teaching high school students, I can also attest to the fact that these children have strong feelings about a number of issues which I don’t think I could change even if I wanted.  I wish I could indoctrinate children to bring a fully charged laptop to school each day.  I want to brainwash students to bring pencils and paper each day.  Yes, teachers have a profound impact on children, but not nearly the level of impact as their primary caregivers.  Generally speaking, the child becomes eerily similar to their parents.  

America in 2022, or Germany in 1934?

The books your children read are important, and sometimes, parents are right to call certain books into question.  Fifty Shades of Grey is not a valuable piece of literature for an English class.  And sadly, some teachers have been that stupid.  The stupidity of the tiniest fraction of educators does not, however, warrant a massive ban on books.  

The boorish behavior of attempting to ban books is not only silly, but dangerous.  It creates an atmosphere where those on the political fringes believe more radical actions are appropriate.  Consider a recent scene in Nashville, Tennessee, where pastor Greg Locke organized a book burning of the Harry Potter novels, along with Twilight, two popular series which Locke and his followers associated with ‘witchcraft.’   

This attitude also led to one parent going so far as to demand a local school in Texas remove Michelle Obama: Political Icon from its library.  The complaint levied charges that the biography was “Complete Leftist Indoctrination [sic] … it shows that Trump is a bully …” Thankfully, the school declined to remove the book.

Wait, what is Critical Race Theory and should we be scared?

Next to banning books, the great concern among conservatives involves banning ‘critical race theory,’ the premise that American governmental and legal systems were designed by white people, and, as a result, favor white people.  A person might suggest that the system has racist aspects when they see different sentences for black and white defendants in criminal cases for the exact same offense.

Proponents of critical race theory also discuss an element known as ‘intersectionality,’ which examines how the connection of sex, class, race, and gender can cause more obstacles in the lives of those who are part of more than one marginalized group.  For instance, a black woman from a poor neighborhood might struggle in ways that a white man would not understand.  She’s poor, black, and a woman — three distinct classes of people who have faced discrimination.  In some ways, they still do.  

Citizens in Texas show up to promote bans on critical race theory

Some of the more radical proponents of critical race theory suggest that merely being white in this system means you are a racist because you benefit from a racist system.  This is the element of critical race theory which causes the most rancor from conservative corners.  Most conservatives tend to be white, and I understand, to a degree, the resentment from accusations of participating in a racist system.  No one wants that label. 

I want my students in situations like this is to evaluate the claim.  Address the critique in a thoughtful manner and determine if there’s any merit.  Is this not the way we want children to act?  To have the ability to seriously consider an issue and determine if it’s a worthy idea?  

Education in any field is never solely about memorizing facts and information.  Once we teach students about those facts, we must make determinations, look for patterns, make predictions — any number of higher order thinking tasks.  What good is it to know information without have any ability to apply it?  

There is no need to fear critical race theory, because the overwhelming number of teachers won’t attempt to brainwash your children that the country is racist.  However, teachers will definitely discuss racist elements of America’s past.  No one can deny that even after slavery ended, black Americans have faced an inordinate amount of discrimination, violence, and injustice.  It’s a discussion you should have with your children.  

Critical race theory bears a strong resemblance to the anti-communist fears in the 1950s.  In dealing with the panic, President Dwight Eisenhower delivered strong remarks about the matter, noting:

Don’t join the book burners. Don’t think you are going to conceal faults by concealing evidence that they ever existed. Don’t be afraid to go in your library and read every book, as long as that document does not offend our own ideas of decency. That should be the only censorship. 

How will we defeat communism unless we know what it is, and what it teaches, and why does it have such an appeal for men, why are so many people swearing allegiance to it? It is almost a religion, albeit one of the nether regions. 

And we have got to fight it with something better, not try to conceal the thinking of our own people. They are part of America. And even if they think ideas that are contrary to ours, their right to say them, their right to record them, and their right to have them at places where they are accessible to others is unquestioned, or it isn’t America.

Hold the issues to the light and examine them.  Critique them.  Consider them.  Beat them back if you believe them wrong.  But don’t give in to the fear of ideas with an attempt to curb them.

So, how does West Virginia fit in?  

The Republican supermajority in the state legislature appears to be taking its cues from others around the country, with plenty of legislation regarding critical race theory. SB 618 would prohibit teaching critical race theory or other ‘divisive concepts,’ and infractions of this would lead to a teacher’s termination. Of course, the comical moves to the absurd with SB  587, which would establish a ‘tip line’ for reporting teachers who instruct about critical race theory.  

The bill goes beyond its expressed purpose, though, where the text reads, 

“The tip line is intended for parents to send in any instances where they feel that their fundamental rights are being violated, where their children are not being respected, and where there are inherently divisive practices being taught in schools.”  

That phone on that tip line would never stop ringing.  The attitudes of children are such that they always believe teachers disrespect them, and any form of discipline constitutes a violation of their rights.  This would only create more teaching vacancies than already exist.  

West Virginia lawmakers discussing CRT bills …

The legislature will also take up HB 4011, known as “The Anti-Stereotyping Act,” which would require instructional or curriculum materials pertaining to “… nondiscrimination, diversity, equity,  inclusion, race, ethnicity, sex, or bias, or any combination of these concepts with other concepts” be posted online with descriptions of the material.  This bill would also prevent teacher trainings or student instruction from promoting or endorsing stereotypes based on “race, sex, ethnicity, religion, or national origin.”  I don’t know why they believe educators are promoting stereotypes of any kind.  

Legislators in West Virginia appear to be sprinting to see who can shepherd a bill through the lawmaking process first.  HB 4016 takes an even more comprehensive approach towards banning certain education approaches.  It not only prohibits critical race theory, but it includes a ban on teaching “… ideological concepts rooted in or inspired by Marxism, Marxist-Leninism, Maoism, socialism, communism.”  A teacher can present information on these ideologies but they must certain criteria in that presentation, including the terrorism associated with these belief systems, and the superiority of capitalism.  So much for free thinking, right?

But, wait, there’s more.  The Anti-Racism Act of 2022, SB 498, again prohibits the teaching of certain racial concepts, using similar wording to the other bills.  This law, however, would provide a person with the ability to file a lawsuit for injunctive relief and actual damages.  Suing the school and educator for teaching particular content?  This would further jam an already backlogged court system and frighten teachers into shying away from important subjects over the risk of a lawsuit.  Again, this state has a teacher shortage.  SB 498 measure would only push more people out of a difficult profession or to simply leave the state and teach elsewhere with more money and less micromanaging.

If you’re reading this and wondering why it’s a bad thing to prohibit stereotyping or ban promoting bad ideologies, then you must look a bit closer at the text of the bills and compare those with the notions in critical race theory.  The language of the bills is couched in euphemisms which make them appear worthwhile on their face, but the deeper idea is to prevent any teaching that American tradition had, or may still have elements of racism.  The driving idea conservatives  want to project into schools is one which would whitewash history and prevent questioning the current roles which race, sex, gender, or even political belief might play in society.  

To claim that we have history ‘locked down’ and no further need for debate exists about our past means establishing the very type of indoctrination that no one desires.  Ideals and principles which the United States values should never include the fear of questioning the established order. 

Republicans use these types of wedge issues to distract from the greater concerns in society.  In West Virginia, our citizens face economic problems which never seem to improve.  The decline of the coal industry and an ongoing opioid epidemic have plagued the state’s financial condition and led to a decrease in population.  I wish the legislature operated with as much gusto in tackling poverty before they spend time correcting a problem which doesn’t exist.  

The Honeymoon is Over: The future of Biden agenda

ike most marriages, a presidential administration begins with a warm, fuzzy feeling of hope.  When President Joe Biden took the oath of office on January 20th, he brought a breath of fresh air after four years of poor policy decisions.  Once a president takes office, he still must govern effectively. 

The road ain’t as long as President Biden would like

The administration’s first 100 days were filled with successes and hope for the the coming year.  President Biden scored a policy victory by passing The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, which authorized $1.9 trillion of spending on COVID relief and assisted in the distribution of vaccine delivery.  The administration reached its goal of vaccinating 100 million Americans within the first 100 days of the president’s term.  American citizens received a stimulus check.  The economy added jobs in recovering from the COVID shutdown.  President Biden’s approval ratings hovered in the 60-something range.  Supporters of the administration mentioned the president’s name in the same breath as Franklin Roosevelt.

The Biden administration hoped to parlay early victories into support for a broad sweeping infrastructure bill known as The American Jobs Plan.  Democrats also proposed a bold attempt at reforming the nation’s elections laws in the For The People Act, which would have likely ended partisan gerrymandering, changed campaign finance laws, and established nationalized standards for ballots and voting procedures.  Maybe he is or isn’t FDR, but you can’t say President Biden isn’t swinging for the fences.

In politics, however, even early victories in an administration sometimes can’t produce enough political capital to govern in the way he or she would like.  And unfortunately for this administration (and probably the nation as a whole), the honeymoon is over for President Biden and America. 

The problems add up

President Biden’s agenda has always hinged on the elimination of the filibuster in the Senate.  The practice of stalling a bill to death means 60 votes are required to push legislation forward.  However, changing Senate rules to end the filibuster only requires 50 votes (Vice President Kamala Harris holds the tie-breaking vote in an evenly divided Senate).  Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) has refused to vote in favor ending the filibuster, dealing a significant blow to the Biden administration. 


Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) advanced the For The People Act though Democrats had always understood it would not pass.  A vote only served to put senators on the record about where they stood on the matter.  The measured failed on a 50-50 vote where no one crossed party lines.

With the voting rights legislation out of the picture for the foreseeable future, President Biden and his team turned their attention to the infrastructure bill.  The Senate could pass the measure using the reconciliation process (a procedure which only requires a majority of votes if the bill relates to spending / budget issues).  It’s how Democrats passed the The American Rescue Plan.  Yet, Senator Manchin threw a wrench in the works again.  West Virginia’s senior senator did not want to use the reconciliation process to pass a bill unless at least one Republican senator would vote for the bill.  Manchin has always maintained that the nation needs to work on reestablishing bipartisanship. 

In that spirit of bipartisanship, Manchin has attempted and succeeded in brokering a deal which will involve support from at least 11 Republicans, including Rob Portman (R-OH) and Mitt Romney (R-UT).  This bill would spend $579 billion immediately and add additional money over the next decade to address a number of infrastructure projects which the nation desperately needs.  

President Biden’s agenda seems to have stalled

So, isn’t this a good thing?  Not exactly for the Biden administration the context of this article.  The politics of who receives credit for this infrastructure bill matters.  The 21 Democrats and Republicans in Congress have a chance to raise their profiles and let everyone know they made it happen, and the president was along for the ride.  Moreover, the bill has crossover appeal amongst the moderates of both parties, but the more liberal wing of the Democrats has expressed frustration over it.  

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) spoke of her frustration with bipartisan deals, noting, “… when these bipartisan deals come together, they tend to underserve the communities that are already underserved …”  

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), perhaps the most liberal in Congress, also didn’t seem too keen about this bill.  Sanders and other members of the more progressive wing of the party believe the term ‘infrastructure’ should include pieces such as climate change, paid family leave, foster care, and funds dedicated to health care.

Members of Congress in the more liberal wing felt a sense of relief when the White House stated they would pursue a two-bill tandem process, which would include a reconciliation budget bill to take up the issues not included in the infrastructure compromise.   The president almost inadvertently torpedoed the entire thing by implying he would veto the infrastructure bill without support for the budget bill.  He later clarified that he would not veto the compromise bill.

The bill isn’t a done deal, and a revolt from his own party isn’t out of the question, and this might be more damaging to his administration than if Republicans kept stonewalling in the Senate.


President Biden also must contend with a growing number of mass shootings across the country.  At the halfway point of this year, more than 270 mass shootings have occurred.  The president’s ability to respond to gun violence is limited to executive orders and these cannot supersede law.  Making any meaningful change to gun policy would require new legislation and Republicans will not yield on this issue.

The president’s accomplishments with regard to vaccine distribution and economic relief seem like a distant memory for most Americans.  Most of the Americans who wanted a COVID vaccine have probably already received one, and stimulus money is long gone.  Throw in a heat wave that is crushing the Northwest and other ‘normal’ problems and no one cares about the fact that unemployment numbers were down in May.

Earlier this year, President Biden tasked Vice President Harris with focusing on the crisis on the southern border and that situation has not improved.  The number of illegal crossings hit a record high in March, and initially, analysts believed those numbers might decrease.  However, the numbers for April and May have eclipsed the record set in March.  Each of the last three months has seen more than 170,000 illegal crossings.  

Vice President Harris complicated matters when dropped the ball in an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt.  When confronted with a question about why she had not been to the border to personally visit, Vice President Harris responded in a flummoxed manner, “And I haven’t been to Europe … And, I mean, I don’t understand the point that you’re making. I’m not discounting the importance of the border.”  It didn’t go over well with anyone.  

What’s holding back the Biden agenda?

1.  A divided Senate — When President Biden took office this year, he did so with a slight majority in the House of Representatives and an evenly divided 50-50 Senate.  This limits his ability to persuade Congress to act.  When Franklin Roosevelt took office, Democrats held 58 of the 96 Senate seats and 311 of the 435 House seats.  In the advent of Lyndon Johnson’s administration, his party controlled 65 Senate seats and 268 House seats.  Barack Obama’s initial numbers were 60 and 256, respectively.  Modern presidents who were known for substantially advancing legislation had an easier path to establishing meaningful policies because they had Congress’ backing.  Without a unified government, any president will struggle. 

2.  Heightened partisanship — The degree to which members of both major parties stick to their tribe affects the Biden agenda, or any president’s agenda.  Members of Congress are too scared to deviate from the official party line.  Democratic and Republican leaders have made it clear they are willing to punish members who go too far off the reservation.  You can believe that Republican leadership made this principle quite clear when they removed Liz Cheney (R-WY) from leadership after her criticism of former President Donald Trump.  Party officials also hold sway over committee assignments, campaign finances, and potential primary challenges.  Only a few members, such as Joe Manchin, have any immunity to this.  If Democrats, for instance, wanted to fund a primary challenger against Manchin, he would only benefit from this.  West Virginia’s generally conservative nature would view a primary challenge against Manchin as a sign that he’s doing the right things.  Also, Manchin’s age must be factored in.  He isn’t facing re-election until 2024 and at that point, he might retire.  He’s one of the rare members of Congress who is as close to bulletproof as you can be.  However, Manchin is the exception and not the rule.

With the 2022 mid-term elections right around the corner, both parties understand what’s at stake.  Democrats need more legislative victories to cement their hold on both houses of Congress (and free them from the tyranny of Joe Manchin).  Republicans hope to stall out the rest of this front half of Biden’s term, with the premise of telling voters that the president did not deliver.  The 2022 mid-terms mean both parties have incentives not to stray from the party line.

3.  Joe Manchin — On one hand, I really like Manchin because, in many ways, he represents a number of political ideas I like.  He’s an old-school Democrat and that’s where I fit in, but he’s also (unintentionally) obstructing policies which an administration has a right to implement when they occupy the White House.  The tactics of the minority party’s ‘run out the clock’ mantra have to change, and Joe Manchin isn’t helping that.  The divided Senate wouldn’t be an issue if Manchin would vote to eliminate the filibuster.  It would be less of an issue if he would be willing to vote for the reconciliation process.  

4. The short memory of voters — American voters only see what’s right in front of them, and the present situation shows us problems and inefficiency. Republicans have more than a decent chance to reclaim both houses of Congress in 2022 and a plausible reason is that the American public won’t remember the positive changes that arrived with the Biden administration. You can see this in a slow decline of President Biden’s approval ratings. The president’s political capital is drying up and there is little room for significant legislation to move forward until after the Election of 2022.

End the filibuster

The United States Congress is undoubtedly one of the most peculiar legislative bodies in the world.  Writers of the Constitution established two unique houses within its legislative branch, each with its own modes of election, representations, differing qualifications, and purposes.  

Though both houses must pass any bill for it to become a law, the Senate was always intended to be (and has been) the de facto upper house.  Yet, the upper house and one of its bizarre procedures continually prevents legislation which would otherwise advance the interests of the majority of American citizens.  Yes, we’re talking about the filibuster.  

A brief background 

In the House of Representatives, time for debate of any given bill on the floor is limited, and for good reason.  With 435 voting members, allowing all members of the House to engage in debate is counterproductive.  Limited debate also means House members must come to the debate with a general understanding of the bill, committee recommendations, and the ability to discuss in a pointed manner.  

Filibusters continue to trend upward

The Senate always maintains a lower number of members, and as such, permitting longer debate is not such a bad idea.  A senator can attempt to persuade fellow members of the body to his or her side of an issue by drawing out the merits or flaws of a bill.  The Senate’s great failure, however, is that ending debate on any given bill requires a supermajority of 60 of its 100 members.  The Constitution does not call for this supermajority to end debate, but the measure is part of the Senate’s rules.  Somewhat paradoxically, Senate rules can be changed with a simple majority vote.

Because the balance of power between Democrats and Republicans vacillates by a only few senators each term, the likelihood of either party obtaining a supermajority is small.  In the last 40 years, it only happened during President Barack Obama’s first two years in office.  Democrats had 60 seats, allowing them to pass The Affordable Care Act without a Republican filibuster.

The time is long overdue for the Senate to change its rules and eliminate the filibuster, permanently. 

An anti-democratic concept 

The filibuster works against one of the central concepts of a representative democracy — a plurality vote.  In most American political institutions, the system is based on a plurality vote, meaning the side with the most votes carries the issue.  The filibuster is anti-democratic, allowing the minority party to block legislation supported by a majority of senators.

Yes, there are other instances where a supermajority is needed to act on a given change, such as amending the Constitution or overriding a presidential veto.  However, those mechanisms attempt to make changes that have more finality than merely advancing legislation out of one house of Congress.  

Legislation is stalled 

How many beneficial pieces of legislation never happened because of the Senate filibuster?  On more than one occasion, Southerners filibustered various civil rights bills.  In 1957, Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC) set the record for a filibuster, speaking for more than 24 consecutive hours.  

“Each presidential administration and new Congress should receive a fair chance to implement policies, particularly at the beginning of a term, when the American people have spoken in recent elections.”

Since the end of the Civil Rights Movement, the use of the filibuster expanded to nearly every topic of legislation — campaign finance, lobbying reform, health care, gun reform, economic stimulus, immigration, etc.  In fairness, the perspective of whether a bill is good or bad often depends on a person’s ideological beliefs.  

However, allowing Congress to engage in its primary task of legislating means taking the risk that they will make mistakes.  This is part of how policy formation works.  If a law establishes a policy which works well for the American people, those elected officials will have earned the right to reap the success.  If the policy turns out poorly, voters can hold them accountable and elect new officials who will vote to reverse a poor policy decision.  As the situation currently stands, the filibuster allows senators to not make difficult decisions on legislation that has widespread support among voters.

Two key pieces of President Joe Biden’s agenda have widespread support in the public, but face an uphill battle due to the filibuster.  HR 1, or the For the People Act, currently has 68% of voters backing its changes to election laws.  The American Jobs Plan, or the Biden infrastructure plan, has a similar amount of support from the public.

Each presidential administration and new Congress should receive a fair chance to implement policies, particularly at the beginning of a term, when the American people have spoken in recent elections.  

Inactivity is activity 

Any party in the Senate minority counts on legislative inertia.  When a minority party can block policy changes, it means nothing happens.  In these instances, nothing is something.  When the people elect officials to improve the conditions of the nation, they do so with the expectation of positive change.  If the minority party can prevent change from occurring, they see it as a victory, and as an added bonus, it allows them to campaign that the opposition didn’t fulfill their promises.  A majority party cannot be expected to deliver on promises when need more than a majority of voters.

Disproportionate power

Each state receives two senators regardless of its population, and this is an important means of protecting smaller states from the legislative whims of larger states.  Yet, that senatorial advantage of small states is exacerbated by the filibuster,  allowing certain individuals to wield a disproportionate amount of power.

The 21 least populous states in the Union are home to approximately 35 million people, which is still significantly less than California’s approximately 40 million people.  These smaller states, by themselves, could stage legislation gridlock with their senators despite only representing slightly less than 10% of the nation’s overall population. 

When any senator filibusters, his or her fellow party members have shown reluctance to vote for an end to debate.  As such, a senator from Wyoming, the least populous state (with a scant 576,000 people), can prevent legislation from coming to a vote that would benefit the nation.

Moreover, crafty senators such as Joe Manchin (D-WV) have learned how to leverage their position as a ‘moderate’ party member to provide them with extraordinary amount of influence. 

Senator Manchin is the key vote for Democrats, and he knows it

After the 2020 Elections, Democrats miraculously pulled off a tied Senate.  Since Vice President Kamala Harris’ one Constitutional responsibility is to break tie votes in the Senate, Democrats have an opportunity to legislate.  However, no Democrat can break ranks in voting if they hope to achieve their legislative aims.  

Manchin has already exhibited a willingness to defy the party and the president and don’t expect him to change.  In West Virginia, Manchin perpetually performs a balancing act in maintaining his Democratic chops while pleasing an increasingly more conservative constituency.  West Virginia’s senior senator claims he does not wish to abandon bipartisanship, and that’s not a bad goal.  

While we can take Manchin at his word for wanting to bring Americans together and applaud the effort, I would hope even he could see that the circumstances of his calls for bipartisanship seem to indicate he’s also concerned about the ‘Trump effect’ in West Virginia.  His current position as the lynchpin of the Senate allows him to keep walking a tightrope to win another term in 2024.  

Manchin’s efforts earned him an invitation to the White House last week and First Lady Dr. Jill Biden made a trip to Charleston with the senator (and West Virginia’s unofficially official ambassador Jennifer Garner).  Also, Manchin’s wife, Gayle, was recently nominated by President Biden and confirmed as a co-chair to the Appalachian Regional Commission.

Meanwhile, important legislation vital to the nation and supported by large swaths of the nation remains in limbo because … well … Joe Manchin.  

The bipartisanship Manchin seeks comes at a high price, and it’s a price he doesn’t have to pay. Manchin is 73 years old with financial assets above and beyond most Americans, let alone West Virginians.  For those outside of the Mountain State, the Manchin name is almost as politically connected as a family can be.  Legislation held up in the name of bipartisanship will neither affect Manchin nor his family.  It does, however, affect most of his constituents.  

The filibuster has already been eroded by both parties

Filibusters do not extend to judicial nominees and other executive appointees, though they once did.  In years past, the minority party could filibuster a nominee to any federal court, including the Supreme Court.  Federal courts already faced a backlog of cases without the filibustering of appointed judges.  

In 2013, then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) led the effort to change rules to allow judicial nominees (other than Supreme Court nominees) and other executive appointments to proceed without the option of a filibuster.  

“The time is long overdue for the Senate to change its rules and end the filibuster, permanently.”

Subsequently, Republicans acted in accordance in 2017, when then Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) ended the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, paving the way for President Trump to appoint three justices to the nation’s highest court (none of whom tallied more than 54 votes in confirmation).

Congress also passed the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which permits the Senate to waive the 60 vote supermajority on bills associated with the budget and spending.  For nearly 50 years, the Senate moves forward with legislation dealing primarily with the nation’s fiscal policies because it is necessary to the functioning of the federal government.  The time has come to extend this process, known as ‘reconciliation.’  

Federal law will still remain consistent 

Despite what Manchin and other elected officials might have us believe, the end of the filibuster will not usher in an era of back and forth legislation, undoing the actions of a previous Congress.  To effectively legislate, either major party will still need to secure the trifecta of controlling the presidency, a majority in the House, and a majority in the Senate.  Even if they achieve this end, they must still produce results or face the prospect of being voted out of office.  

For the people, for the win

Traditionally, individual American states are left to establish their own election and voting laws.  However, a number of states have created policies which placed unconstitutional and unnecessary obstacles to voting.  Southern states notoriously discriminated against people of color for decades before the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ended many of these practices.  This legislation also required states with a history of discriminatory practices to seek preclearance from the federal government before changing election laws.

In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in Shelby County v. Holder that the ‘preclearance’ requirement was no longer valid considering the Voting Rights Act was based on racial data several decades old.  The decision allowed states latitude in creating election laws again.  Numerous states have passed laws requiring photo identification to vote, which could be construed as a form of poll tax and an unnecessary obstacle for voting.  States have revised legal codes to make it much easier to purge voter registrations if citizens do not vote often enough.  In the last few months, several state legislatures have tightened restrictions on early and absentee voting for no discernible reason.

To address accessibility to voting and other election related issues, Democrats in the US House of Representatives created HR1, known as theFor The People Act.  This bill is an all-encompassing reform of a large number of policies which have made the United States less democratic in terms of elections.

Voting

In terms of voting, the bill requires automatic voter registration in each state, and citizens can still opt out if they desire.  The bill will also permit registration via internet, require states to allow same-day registration (on Election Day), and provide funds to states to promote additional registration drives and the importance of voting.  

HR1 will also maintain that states provide more accessibility features in terms of voting for citizens with physical disabilities.  States must also restore voting rights to felons who have served their criminal sentences.  On Election Day, the ballots would be standardized for federal elections and provide more consistency nationwide.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) promotes the For the People Act

Mail-in voting and absentee ballots would become easier to obtain and use and states would be required to establish contingency plans for voting in the event of natural disasters or a health related issue (you know … like a pandemic).

Representation issues in Congress

One of the more important features of this bill encourages and supports (but not require) that Washington, D.C. become a state, thereby guaranteeing them representation in the House and Senate.  The bill points out that D.C. already has more population than a few other states and promotes the idea that citizens within the capital city deserve this.  

Similarly, the bill also encourages and supports federal voting rights (but not statehood) for Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands.  For those keeping score at home, these are all American territories, but they do not receive the same rights and privileges as states within the union. 

In what may be the most important aspect of this bill, states would be obligated to establish an independent commission which would draw borders for Congressional districts within a state after the census numbers determine population gains or losses.  This would take authority away from state legislatures to gerrymander districts to help or hurt parties, races, or particular candidates.  

How gerrymandering can affect election outcomes

This section of the bill also would end the practice of ‘voter purges’ where states often delete citizens from the registration database if they have not recently participated in an election.

Campaign Finance Restrictions 

Non-citizens would be prohibited from participating in any type fo electioneering activities, expanding a current ban on foreigners not being permitted to donate to campaigns.  Additionally, the new law would ban the practice of creating corporations for the purpose of funneling foreign money through those corporations for use in election related activities.

Online ads would become more transparent in who funded them, including requirements for disclosure of top donors to a particular group.  “Deepfake” videos would be banned from political ads, and publicly traded corporations would have to disclose financial information (including donor lists) to shareholders.

Campaign Finance Empowerment

The federal government would launch a pilot program in three states which would provide every eligible voter with a $25 voucher for a donation to a candidate.  These citizens could then take the voucher and give it to the candidate of their choosing.  The idea behind this program would be to allow for more Americans to express their voice through donating funds to a candidate that they might not otherwise donate due to a lack of finances.

Candidates for federal office would be eligible for ‘matching funds’ when they receive smaller contributions (under $200).  Those contributions would be matched up to six times the value to amplify the voice of small donors.  (To receive the matching funds, federal candidates would have to meet certain eligibility requirements. )

Small contributions would also benefit political action committees (PACs).  Under HR1, any contribution under $200 to a PAC could be placed in a special account where a contribution of up to $10,000 could be made to any one candidate (as opposed to the usual limit of $5,000).

Strengthening the Federal Election Commission 

Currently, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has a six person team to make decisions about campaign finance enforcement and the even number sometimes inhibits the ability to act.  This bill would reduce the size to five members, chosen by the president on staggered terms, to enforce campaign finance law.  

The FEC would have the ability to more effectively monitor Super PACs by an expanded definition about what types of coordination these entities could have with candidates or their campaigns.  

Congressional and Presidential Ethics Requirements 

Some other requirements which affect those running for and holding federal office:

  • The president would have the option of either divesting any stocks or financial holdings which might cause a conflict of interest or place his accounts into a blind trust.  The president would also be prevented from having any government contracts through any of his or her business holdings.
  • Presidential appointees would be required to disclose political donations.
  • Congressional members and their staff cannot advance any legislation that financially benefits themselves or members of their immediate family.
  • House members would be banned from serving on the board of any for-profit companies. (Apparently, the Senate already has rules in place for this.)
  • Staff members of a Congressional office must disclose outside compensation and reports will be available about this information.
  • Presidential and vice presidential candidates must disclose income tax returns and any returns on personally owned businesses for the previous 10 years.

What are the pros of HR1?  

I believe democracy deserves free and fair elections where voting should be as easy as humanly possible.  I cannot understand why automatic voter registration hasn’t been part of the American way.  Other democracies have been doing this for years.  Standardized ballots, early voting, mail-in voting, no more ‘purges’ of legitimate voters — these all make sense.  Having a more uniform system of voting is one aspect of a democracy where a nationwide policy is better than 50 different entities have a wide variety of rules and regulations.  When we have allowed this, marginalized groups, particularly racial groups, have been the victims of discrimination.  

Changes from HR1 mitigate some of the effects from the Citizens United v. FEC decision, which gave rises to Super PACs and more ‘dark money.’  Requiring more disclosure of funding sources and how campaign finances are spent lets citizens know who funds the candidates and to what extent.  This can only help democracy, not hinder it. 

The impact of Citizens United on campaign spending is undeniable

The experimental voucher program and matching funds program could considerably alter elections for the foreseeable future.  Candidates who have widespread appeal among citizens who do not have monetary resources would now possess the ability to financially express support for candidates.  Currently, most Americans do not contribute money to campaigns or candidates. This would be an entry point for many Americans to consider donating to a candidate.

HR1 might effectively end the ridiculous practice of gerrymandering, where state legislatures have the ability to draw congressional district lines to the benefit of their preferred candidates or political party.  This practice, by both Democrats and Republicans, establishes districts where no real competition exists.  As a result, members of the House of Representatives often do not fear losing their seat because they never have to make difficult decisions on legislation.  

And the cons … ?

The most significant problem with this bill might be the same problem most bills present:  the cost.  Added expenses to the federal government for the necessary standardization of voting equipment, ballots, and other devices would only increase an ever expanding budget.  Neither Democrats nor Republicans seem to possess any motivation to reduce government spending, and this issue already existed prior to the COVID pandemic.  

HR1 also adds more layers to an extremely large federal bureaucracy.  Who will monitor the expanded regulations?  The FEC will most likely need more employees and states will need additional resources to comply with a number of the requirements this law would demand.

The bill is a monster of nearly 800 pages and it would change quite a bit of policy in one fell swoop.  Congress might be more pliable in changing election laws in a more piecemeal approach, where one bad provision doesn’t sink a bill full of good changes.

Statehood for Washington D.C. and federal voting rights for territories  would not be required by HR1, but the bill would create a commission to study changes for federal territories and encourages statehood for D.C.   This is most likely to be construed as a power grab by Democrats.  If territories were granted electoral votes in the presidential elections (similar to D.C. in the 23rd Amendment), these areas would likely vote in a more liberal fashion, handing any Democrat an easier path to the presidency.  The possibility of statehood for D.C. or any of the territories would also receive a healthy dose of skepticism because it would likely mean more Democrats serving in Congress.  The United States has an obligation to do more for its territories, but we should be asking why Democrats appear so concerned about this now?  

This bill would weaken state sovereignty.  In our federalist system, the line of demarcation between the national government and state governments will become more blurred.  States generally make their own policies about elections and this bill will take one more power and place it under the vast umbrella of the federal government.  

A compelling argument exists for the uniformity of elections nationwide.  Southern states, in particular, have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to enact discriminatory practices in elections which either prevent voting or establish unnecessary obstacles to participate in the most important form of political participation.  Moreover, the federal government does maintain an obligation to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of Liberty for the American people.  

Will this bill pass?

HR1 has already passed through the House of Representatives by a 220-210 vote, almost entirely along party lines (one Democrat voted against, two Republicans did not vote, and two other seats were vacant at the time of the vote).  The Senate will advance the bill since Democrats are in the majority, but the road will be long for the bill to become law.  Why do Republicans not like the bill?

The simplest explanation is that the passage of this bill translates to a strategic loss for Republicans.  If this bill passes, they will lose more elections.  The makeup of Americans in terms of Democrats and Republicans in modern history has leaned towards Democrats.  To offset a numerical disadvantage, Republicans have utilized vast financial resources and gerrymandering to win elections.  (Both parties gerrymander districts when they think they can get away with it, but the Republicans just happen to be better at it.)

Passing this bill would mean independent commissions with members of both major parties would work together in creating fair boundary lines.  If they cannot agree on a redistricting plan, a panel of federal circuit court judges in that state would take over the task.  This would diminish the ability of Republican controlled state legislatures to establish districts that maximize their representation in the House.

Republicans would also lose ground in the financial arms race of elections.  Money does not guarantee a win in an election, but candidates don’t win without it.  Allowing matching funds for small donations helps individuals who do not have access to significant wealth.  These contributions and the experimental voucher programs would benefit people more likely to identify as Democrats rather than Republicans.  Furthermore, the requirements of disclosures of top donor lists from Super PACs would demonstrate who funds the groups with some of the most ridiculous and dishonest attack ads.  These individuals who fund and operate Super PACs would also face more limitations in terms of what types of interactions they can have with those candidates.  

Republicans do not want this bill to pass and they currently have 50 votes in the Senate.  Since HR1 is not a budget related bill, debate is not limited and the GOP members would filibuster this bill if necessary.  Breaking a filibuster and ending debate would require 60 votes and obviously, it’s a difficult hurdle to overcome.  But, Democrats can pass this bill based on what transpires in the next few months.

President Joe Biden and his team can move this bill across the finish line, but it will depend on a few factors:

  • Can this administration deliver on its promises of vaccination availability for Americans?  Biden promises 100 million shots in his first 100 days in office and the administration says it is on track to meet that goal.  The more this administration delivers on promises and meets objectives like this, Senate Republicans will face more pressure to vote for legislation supported by Biden. 

  • What will happen with the Biden team’s infrastructure bill in Congress?  The success or failure of this legislation will help to determine the fate of other legislation in the future.  The more momentum Democrats build now in not only passing legislation, but efficiently carrying out those policies will make it increasingly difficult for Senate Republicans to vote no on HR1 (or any other legislation).
  • Can the administration tamp down distractions?  In any given moment in the United States, issues manifest themselves and government must response.  Gun violence has already returned and the pandemic is still an ongoing reality.  Jobs reports, GDP, market activity, and international crises will also take attention away from other legislative priorities.  

I want to see this bill pass, but the odds are against it at this point.  Democrats need all the stars to align to sufficiently pressure Senate Republicans into passing this bill.  The odds seem to be against these things coming to pass, particularly since the Biden team prioritizes the infrastructure above election law.  I put the odds of it passing as low, but it would be instrumental in making the United States a more democratic nation.